Originally posted by addaboxHere's a little more food for thought from atrios:

Quote:

Why are the Swift Boat Liars and Move On "two sides of the same coin." Move On is an established organization which has been around for years and which has a very large small donor base (and, a few large donors as well). Swift Boat Liars came into being just recently to lie about John Kerry's record.

Funny how you give it credibility because it is from a "blogger."

First the critics of Kerry are not recent. In fact it is quite the opposite. They have a very long history. Oneil for example has been fighting Kerry over his war allegations since about 1972.

But a couple of other points. First none of these 527's have been around for very long because the law that created them has only been on the books for three years. Moveon.org was formed with the intent of defeating Bush. Bush was known to be president and to continue to be a candidate for reelection before Kerry even decided to run. So of course they could be created first.

Swiftboat Vets was founded after Kerry won the nomination because those vets believed him to be untruthful and did not want him to be president. It was also founded in part to answer a book that Kerry had published about himself in January of this year which made allegations about the members of SwiftBoat.

So nothing seems weird about that timeline. If SwiftVets had been formed three years ago, that would look very strange indeed. Instead they were formed to address an issue that came up, which is exactly what 527's are supposed to be about.

MoveOn and their affiliates were formed to be shadow campaigns to allow the Democrats to spend unlimited, unaccounted for money in the election of whoever they wanted to run against Bush. They could be formed earlier because when you aren't addressing an issue, but are slushing around money, you don't have to wait for anything to come up to address, you can just starting spending.

Originally posted by trumptmanFunny how you give it credibility because it is from a "blogger."

First the critics of Kerry are not recent. In fact it is quite the opposite. They have a very long history. Oneil for example has been fighting Kerry over his war allegations since about 1972.

But a couple of other points. First none of these 527's have been around for very long because the law that created them has only been on the books for three years. Moveon.org was formed with the intent of defeating Bush. Bush was known to be president and to continue to be a candidate for reelection before Kerry even decided to run. So of course they could be created first.

Swiftboat Vets was founded after Kerry won the nomination because those vets believed him to be untruthful and did not want him to be president. It was also founded in part to answer a book that Kerry had published about himself in January of this year which made allegations about the members of SwiftBoat.

So nothing seems weird about that timeline. If SwiftVets had been formed three years ago, that would look very strange indeed. Instead they were formed to address an issue that came up, which is exactly what 527's are supposed to be about.

MoveOn and their affiliates were formed to be shadow campaigns to allow the Democrats to spend unlimited, unaccounted for money in the election of whoever they wanted to run against Bush. They could be formed earlier because when you aren't addressing an issue, but are slushing around money, you don't have to wait for anything to come up to address, you can just starting spending.

Nick

I give credibility to anyone with a persuasive argument to make. Nothing "funny" about it. You might want to check it out.

Notice you don't respond to the meat of argument, which is that the allegations made by the not-so-swift liars are unsubstantiated, flatly contradicted by the military record, and frequently contradicted by the liars themselves. Whereas the questions about Bush's national guard duty are based on documented inconsistencies, actual eye brow raisers (didn't show up for medical exam for flight training? Hmmm...) and a telling lack of conclusive counter evidence.

Like I said to SDW, committing yourself to a world where you are obliged to argue counter to the evidence is a character eroding proposition. I wouldn't be surprised if ya'll have actually lost the ability to distinguish truth from fiction, you've been busily supporting the lies of this administration for so long.

But again, as I have said, the more grotesque trend is the effort to build a world where there is no objective truth, or rather the American people no longer believe that there is an objective truth, so that the fabulists of the right can be free to craft there "message" without any pesky reality to intrude.

And the conservatives on this board have aligned them with that, and I think that is the real body blow to our republic.

I know you don't think so, but why should I pay any mind to you? You've been consistently wrong about everything, from the justification for the war and the tenor its aftermath to the efficacy of tax cuts as engines of job creation, the factual basis for various slurs against Kerry, the innocence of various bad actors in the Bush administration and finally, to Bush's viability as a candidate and the ultimate cynicism and credulity of the American people.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Imagine if supporters of Bill Clinton had tried in 1996 to besmirch the military record of his opponent, Bob Dole. After all, Dole was given a Purple Heart for a leg scratch probably caused, according to one biographer, when a hand grenade thrown by one of his own men bounced off a tree. And while the serious injuries Dole sustained later surely came from German fire, did the episode demonstrate heroism on Dole's part or a reckless move that ended up killing his radioman and endangering the sergeant who dragged Dole off the field?

The truth, according to many accounts, is that Dole fought with exceptional bravery and deserves the nation's gratitude. No one in 1996 questioned that record. Any such attack on behalf of Clinton, an admitted Vietnam draft dodger, would have been preposterous.

Imagine.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

Originally posted by addabox
Notice you don't respond to the meat of argument, which is that the allegations made by the not-so-swift liars are unsubstantiated, flatly contradicted by the military record, and frequently contradicted by the liars themselves. Whereas the questions about Bush's national guard duty are based on documented inconsistencies, actual eye brow raisers (didn't show up for medical exam for flight training? Hmmm...) and a telling lack of conclusive counter evidence.

Like I said to SDW, committing yourself to a world where you are obliged to argue counter to the evidence is a character eroding proposition. I wouldn't be surprised if ya'll have actually lost the ability to distinguish truth from fiction, you've been busily supporting the lies of this administration for so long.

But again, as I have said, the more grotesque trend is the effort to build a world where there is no objective truth, or rather the American people no longer believe that there is an objective truth, so that the fabulists of the right can be free to craft there "message" without any pesky reality to intrude.

And the conservatives on this board have aligned them with that, and I think that is the real body blow to our republic.

I know you don't think so, but why should I pay any mind to you? You've been consistently wrong about everything, from the justification for the war and the tenor its aftermath to the efficacy of tax cuts as engines of job creation, the factual basis for various slurs against Kerry, the innocence of various bad actors in the Bush administration and finally, to Bush's viability as a candidate and the ultimate cynicism and credulity of the American people.

I've addresse the swiftboat allegations about a dozen times. I'm not going to repeat myself until you care to hear whatever it is you care to hear.

As for not paying mind to me. You don't have to. You can ignore me for all I care. In fact, it would be preferable to the tone of your current posts.

The thing I find most humorous is how most of the people who declare I am so consistantly "wrong" about these things have most things about their own personal lives wrong. That is why all the personal attacks/rants people like yourself post just bounce right off me. See outside of these forums, I'm not only right, I'm very successfully so. I don't need you to grant me credibility because outside of your little ranting posts, I have plenty.

Except...Kerrry did bring it up. I'd like some answers to those questions, legitimate or not. Why reenact footage? Why throw away your medals only to find them again? Why participate in a meeting to plot the assasination of US senators to stop the war? Why admit comitting war crimes on TV?

BRussell:

Jesus, now you're drinking the Clinton Kool-Aid as well.

Taxes on the middle class went up in more ways than one. Clinton supported many different kinds of taxes. Perhaps you haven't look at things like your telephone bill recently. That was mostly Clinton's work. He raised marginal rates on the middle class extensively. The child credit does not compensate for this. What about people with no children? How is that you can give Clinton credit for an economy thriving on the business cycle, new markets in technology, and the internet bubble? How can you give Clinton credit for balancing the budget, when it is in fact the Republican Congress that did so?

addabox:

Revisionist history. The economy didn't really get moving until 1996 and wasn't booming until 1998.

jimmac;

When Kerry comes out and slams the ridiculous Media Fund and MoveOn.org, I'll ask Bush to do the same with the Swift Boat group.

I assume you are ware that Bush has essentially condemned ALL 527s?

Been over this!!!!!

The problem ( you might have noticed ) is that Bush has made so many mistakes and gone over the line of propriety so many times he makes an easy target. Where as the attacks on Kerry seem like a one note song.

By the way you did hear about the recent congressional report that confirms taxes went down dramatically for the rich and up for the poor? I posted this for you earlier but I doubt you read it since you tend to ignore facts that don't fit your world view.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Originally posted by trumptmanI've addresse the swiftboat allegations about a dozen times. I'm not going to repeat myself until you care to hear whatever it is you care to hear.

As for not paying mind to me. You don't have to. You can ignore me for all I care. In fact, it would be preferable to the tone of your current posts.

The thing I find most humorous is how most of the people who declare I am so consistantly "wrong" about these things have most things about their own personal lives wrong. That is why all the personal attacks/rants people like yourself post just bounce right off me. See outside of these forums, I'm not only right, I'm very successfully so. I don't need you to grant me credibility because outside of your little ranting posts, I have plenty.

Nick

Same here. Trumpy ignores what he doesn't want to hear.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Originally posted by trumptmanI've addresse the swiftboat allegations about a dozen times. I'm not going to repeat myself until you care to hear whatever it is you care to hear.

As for not paying mind to me. You don't have to. You can ignore me for all I care. In fact, it would be preferable to the tone of your current posts.

The thing I find most humorous is how most of the people who declare I am so consistantly "wrong" about these things have most things about their own personal lives wrong. That is why all the personal attacks/rants people like yourself post just bounce right off me. See outside of these forums, I'm not only right, I'm very successfully so. I don't need you to grant me credibility because outside of your little ranting posts, I have plenty.

Nick

You've "addressed" the allegations by trying to claim that they have merit, that they have some legitimate place in the political debate, and that they are somehow mirrored by activities on the left, none of which is remotely true (that word again).

So yeah, by all means, stop lying to yourself and others, it's depressing.

As far as your slightly spooky ruminations about my personal life vs. your "success", good for you, back at ya.

But while you enjoy your credibility back in the world, give a thought to the future of the country and what it means when the sitting president campaigns entirely on the basis of slur and innuendo, backed up by a credulous media apparatus that treats accusations as new events. How is that good?

Because that is, of course, what I care about. I will argue this point wherever there is a venue, and do; with letters to the editor, trying to persuade people I know, supporting entities and institutions that care about reasoned analysis over triumphalism and bullying, and voting for people that I think care about the same.

Because it's important.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Here's a great Washington Post article that goes very in depth into the whole SwiftVets vs Kerry issue. It deals much more with the Bronze Star/Third Purple Heart issue and also many of the long standing fights the respective men have been having.

The most compelling thing about it though, is the complete absence of Bush from all of this. It also does a good job of showing the Kerry book, and how it came about. Finally it details very well the timeline for the formation of SwiftVets and how it relates to Kerry's actions.

Quote:

Two best-selling books have formed the basis for public discussion of the events of March 13, 1969, as a result of which Kerry won a Bronze Star and his third Purple Heart. The fullest account of Kerry's experience in Vietnam is "Tour of Duty" by prominent presidential historian Douglas Brinkley. It was written with Kerry's cooperation and with exclusive access to his diaries and other writings about the Vietnam War. "Unfit for Command," by John E. O'Neill, who succeeded Kerry as commander of his Swift boat, and Jerome R. Corsi, lays out a detailed attack on Kerry's record.

This part is very telling...

Quote:

The anti-Kerry veterans began mobilizing earlier this year, following publication of the Brinkley biography and the nationwide publicity given to Kerry's emotional reunion with Rassmann. Many of the veterans were contacted personally by Hoffmann, a gung-ho naval officer compared unflatteringly in "Tour of Duty" to the out-of-control lieutenant colonel in the movie "Apocalypse Now" who talked about how he loved "the smell of napalm in the morning."

Hoffmann, who was already angry with Kerry for his antiwar activities on his return from Vietnam, said in an interview that he was "appalled" to find out from reading "Tour of Duty" that Kerry was "considered to be a Navy hero." "I thought there was a tremendous amount of gross exaggeration in the book and, in some places, downright lies. So I started contacting some of my former shipmates," he said.

So we can see that it is as I've contended all along. The SwiftVet's are a reaction to the claims made by Kerry about Vietnam.

Originally posted by addaboxYou've "addressed" the allegations by trying to claim that they have merit, that they have some legitimate place in the political debate, and that they are somehow mirrored by activities on the left, none of which is remotely true (that word again).

So yeah, by all means, stop lying to yourself and others, it's depressing.

As far as your slightly spooky ruminations about my personal life vs. your "success", good for you, back at ya.

But while you enjoy your credibility back in the world, give a thought to the future of the country and what it means when the sitting president campaigns entirely on the basis of slur and innuendo, backed up by a credulous media apparatus that treats accusations as new events. How is that good?

Because that is, of course, what I care about. I will argue this point wherever there is a venue, and do; with letters to the editor, trying to persuade people I know, supporting entities and institutions that care about reasoned analysis over triumphalism and bullying, and voting for people that I think care about the same.

Because it's important.

Again, put down the crack pipe.

I've not claimed that the 527's on the left mirror SwiftVets. I've claimed they are much, much worse. They are outright being used by a few mega-rich people to inject millions of unaccountable cash into a presidential elections.

As for using past events for attempting to discredit candidates and their respective plans for the future of the United States, you tell me if you can find a report questioning Kerry's service that dates earlier than all the media harping about Bush and the National Guard. You seem to imply that Kerry has been investigated in a manner that Bush has not. That's just not true. Bush faced the National Guard issue in both the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

As for legitimate political debate, I've also posted a thread on these forums about Kerry and what changes he would bring about to Iraq. So it isn't as if I am ducking contemporary issues. Maybe my voice gets lost in the 90+% of the members of these forums who are hard left, but that doesn't mean I don't address them. We've had a huge thread on here about environmentalism and it isn't like I was sitting there changing "What about vietnam" over and over in either thread.

The reality is that Kerry can't change the number of troops in Iraq. He's tried to play up his war credentials to give the impression that he can do something different.

On the domestic front Kerry claims he can cut the budget deficit in half, stop jobs from being exported (by cutting corporate taxes BTW), and spend $200+ billion more a year all while keeping most of the tax cuts and only raising income taxes on those who earn more than $200k a year.

That smells like 100% pure bullshit no matter who mouths it. You know it.

I've not claimed that the 527's on the left mirror SwiftVets. I've claimed they are much, much worse. They are outright being used by a few mega-rich people to inject millions of unaccountable cash into a presidential elections.

As for using past events for attempting to discredit candidates and their respective plans for the future of the United States, you tell me if you can find a report questioning Kerry's service that dates earlier than all the media harping about Bush and the National Guard. You seem to imply that Kerry has been investigated in a manner that Bush has not. That's just not true. Bush faced the National Guard issue in both the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

As for legitimate political debate, I've also posted a thread on these forums about Kerry and what changes he would bring about to Iraq. So it isn't as if I am ducking contemporary issues. Maybe my voice gets lost in the 90+% of the members of these forums who are hard left, but that doesn't mean I don't address them. We've had a huge thread on here about environmentalism and it isn't like I was sitting there changing "What about vietnam" over and over in either thread.

The reality is that Kerry can't change the number of troops in Iraq. He's tried to play up his war credentials to give the impression that he can do something different.

On the domestic front Kerry claims he can cut the budget deficit in half, stop jobs from being exported (by cutting corporate taxes BTW), and spend $200+ billion more a year all while keeping most of the tax cuts and only raising income taxes on those who earn more than $200k a year.

That smells like 100% pure bullshit no matter who mouths it. You know it.

Originally posted by jimmac-----------------------------------------------------------
" On the domestic front Kerry claims he can cut the budget deficit in half "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Why not? Clinton did something similar. But it will take time as it did with Clinton since Bush has made such a mess of things.

Yes but Clinton gave up doing the big things because he knew he couldn't get them past the Republican Congress. Pundits use to tease that Clinton sounded like he was running for mayor instead of president because of the nature of his proposals. Kerry does not have small measures like that in conjunction with balancing the budget.

I've not claimed that the 527's on the left mirror SwiftVets. I've claimed they are much, much worse. They are outright being used by a few mega-rich people to inject millions of unaccountable cash into a presidential elections.

As for using past events for attempting to discredit candidates and their respective plans for the future of the United States, you tell me if you can find a report questioning Kerry's service that dates earlier than all the media harping about Bush and the National Guard. You seem to imply that Kerry has been investigated in a manner that Bush has not. That's just not true. Bush faced the National Guard issue in both the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.

As for legitimate political debate, I've also posted a thread on these forums about Kerry and what changes he would bring about to Iraq. So it isn't as if I am ducking contemporary issues. Maybe my voice gets lost in the 90+% of the members of these forums who are hard left, but that doesn't mean I don't address them. We've had a huge thread on here about environmentalism and it isn't like I was sitting there changing "What about vietnam" over and over in either thread.

The reality is that Kerry can't change the number of troops in Iraq. He's tried to play up his war credentials to give the impression that he can do something different.

On the domestic front Kerry claims he can cut the budget deficit in half, stop jobs from being exported (by cutting corporate taxes BTW), and spend $200+ billion more a year all while keeping most of the tax cuts and only raising income taxes on those who earn more than $200k a year.

That smells like 100% pure bullshit no matter who mouths it. You know it.

I've even said I would vote for a Democrat who addressed the issues of deficits, trade or immigration.

So perhaps it is you who needs to take off the blinders and do a little critical analysis of candidate Kerry. Because be it Vietnam, Iraq, or domestic issues, his words and promises don't add up.

Nick

I'd be happy to address the real issues in the threads devoted to them. This thread is about the evidence that the swift boat vets are lying.

You made a decision to throw your lot in with the sleaziest of Rove's attack modes. You continued to claim that these attacks had some relevance to the campaign after having your attention directed to self-contradicting statements by the vets themselves, further testimonies in support of Kerry from people who were really there, not just in same country, and the investigative process that underlies awarding of medals (as opposed to the simply ridiculous "Kerry put himself in for the Bronze star and somehow controlled the Navy's investigation into not just his own but another guy's medal that day.

None of which have you "addressed".

So given that you support the worst sleaze the political process has to offer, and your best defense (as always) is some kind of vague notion of "parity" on the left (again, very simply untrue), do you really find it surprising that people might start to get a little brusque with you?

Pretty much everybody on these boards can see this for what it is, and how, as ever more evidence accrues to confirm this episode as the shabby piece of gutter politics that it is, you start to want to change the subject: to how much money MoveOn.org spends, or whether or not Bush's guard duty got similar play, or how you're complaints about Bush's errors prove open-mindedness.

That being the case, why go down the muddy road with the Swifties? Supporting Bush over Kerry doesn't require it, you can, and have, argued the case on the merits.

This isn't a debate over taxation and distribution of wealth, or the role of government in day to day life, or the possibility of building a more egalitarian society vs. letting the free market have its way.

Those are points of contention worthy of debate, which we do, and which is part and parcel of the nature of political argument. Though I might berate you for being obtuse or short sighted for not seeing my enlightened viewpoint of anyone of these issues, I would grant you the assumption that you are arguing on behalf of what's best for the country.

The swift boat slur is entirely another matter. Nobody obliged you to enthusiastically embrace their claims. I can't see where doing so could arise out of any real ideological stance other than "we will beat you with whatever club presents itself".

As long as this shit is still in play I will continue to present evidence that it is bullshit. As long as you continue to act as if it had bearing on Kerry's fitness to be president, I will address you under the assumption that you're a whore who values winning over ethics.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Originally posted by addaboxI'd be happy to address the real issues in the threads devoted to them. This thread is about the evidence that the swift boat vets are lying.

You made a decision to throw your lot in with the sleaziest of Rove's attack modes. You continued to claim that these attacks had some relevance to the campaign after having your attention directed to self-contradicting statements by the vets themselves, further testimonies in support of Kerry from people who were really there, not just in same country, and the investigative process that underlies awarding of medals (as opposed to the simply ridiculous "Kerry put himself in for the Bronze star and somehow controlled the Navy's investigation into not just his own but another guy's medal that day.

None of which have you "addressed".

What the hell are you talking about? Every thing that has been brought up I've addressed.

Swifties being Bush front group because of one donation... addressed as guilt by association.

Claim that first purple heart was not due to gun fire and possible self inflicted. In the other thread I pointed out directly what would end this claim. I addressed it straight up with the military criteria and also this info which I quoted.

Quote:

There are no written records of Kerry's magical first Purple Heart on file at the Naval Historical Center in Washington, the nation's primary repository for such documentation. A Purple Heart normally is not requested but is awarded de facto for a wound inflicted by the enemy - a wound serious enough to require medical attention. The Naval Historical Center keeps all documents connected to such awards to U.S. Navy and Marine personnel. These typewritten "casualty cards" list the date, location and prognosis of the wound for which the Purple Heart is given, and they are produced by the medical facility that provides treatment for the combat wound at the hands of the enemy. There are two such cards for Kerry - for his slight wounds on Feb. 20 and March 13, 1969, but none for his December 1968 claim.

The saving the special forces/bronze star/third purple heart bit, I posted the article from the Washington Post that detailed the timelines, the omissions and confusions from both sides, etc.

So what the hell hasn't been addressed, in fact addressed multiple times?

I've even addressed the Swiftboat motivations, timeline for being formed, funding sources, etc.

In otherwords, you are so full of shit it is coming out your ears. I've posted to every possible angle brought up. You just don't care to hear the truth.

Originally posted by trumptmanWhat the hell are you talking about? Every thing that has been brought up I've addressed.

Swifties being Bush front group because of one donation... addressed as guilt by association.

Claim that first purple heart was not due to gun fire and possible self inflicted. In the other thread I pointed out directly what would end this claim. I addressed it straight up with the military criteria and also this info which I quoted.

The saving the special forces/bronze star/third purple heart bit, I posted the article from the Washington Post that detailed the timelines, the omissions and confusions from both sides, etc.

So what the hell hasn't been addressed, in fact addressed multiple times?

I've even addressed the Swiftboat motivations, timeline for being formed, funding sources, etc.

In otherwords, you are so full of shit it is coming out your ears. I've posted to every possible angle brought up. You just don't care to hear the truth.

Nick

Every possible angle but admitting they're lying.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

You thought up the "angles"
and you sure posted alot . . . you even seem to think the fact that one of the SBV4T was on a Bush Steering committee does not qualify as dirty
You even made some sort of wierd foray into attempting to compare your 'success' (heehee) with other posters, as if it -if there were an 'it' there- were the measure of a person's ability to discern truth from sleazy political slander.
You even dared to have us believe that your 'criticisms' of Bush are really more than pretending to be above partisanship
But
I don't really think that you have stepped back and really looked at what you are arguing for: what good it could possibly pretend to carry (beyond mere character assasination) and asked yourself why this same tactic seems to have also arisen from the same PR-Machine cogs in other situations . . . nor have you seemed to actually discerned the difference between politically invested partisans, including actual officials, and, eyewitnesses who's presence is indisputable and who sometimes have different political allignments than Kerry's.

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes--Franklin Miller.

Originally posted by trumptmanYes but Clinton gave up doing the big things because he knew he couldn't get them past the Republican Congress. Pundits use to tease that Clinton sounded like he was running for mayor instead of president because of the nature of his proposals. Kerry does not have small measures like that in conjunction with balancing the budget.

Nick

Right!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Originally posted by addaboxEvery possible angle but admitting they're lying.

Probably haven't covered that because they aren't. The issues they raise are legitimate and while a few details may conflict with their view of the events, an equal number of even more details conflict with the Kerry version of the events.

So I suppose by that reasoning, I could claim SwiftVets are partial liars while Kerry is a complete liar.

Quote:

Originally posted by FormerLurkerGuess you're ready to get this thread locked, huh?
"please refer to sig below"

Well between this thread and the other, I've only been called a liar about twenty times. I was relatively cool for the first nineteen. Even that little bit was nice compared to what has been given.

Quote:

Originally posted by pfflam
You even made some sort of wierd foray into attempting to compare your 'success' (heehee) with other posters, as if it -if there were an 'it' there- were the measure of a person's ability to discern truth from sleazy political slander.

Actually Adda claimed I am "wrong about everything." Not just about SwiftVet's but on everything on which I hold a view. To me that was just humorous because in reality (aka not these forums) if a person constantly "wrong on everything." You would expect them to be pretty bad off. I just mentioned that regardless of his view created by this little skewed community and the conclusions he draws from it, reality is very different.

In fact anyone who thinks they have credibility because "The people who post on AppleInsider all agree with me" ought to seek professional help.

Quote:

I don't really think that you have stepped back and really looked at what you are arguing for: what good it could possibly pretend to carry (beyond mere character assasination) and asked yourself why this same tactic seems to have also arisen from the same PR-Machine cogs in other situations . . . nor have you seemed to actually discerned the difference between politically invested partisans, including actual officials, and, eyewitnesses who's presence is indisputable and who sometimes have different political allignments than Kerry's.

I really don't care what you think. I know that I've been challenged as the messenger of this news to justify it in every possible way. (Including the whole donation angle that you brought up and still haven't admitted that I fulfilled) The real people who haven't looked at this are those that believe evil intentions of the people Kerry has criticized for three decades and who are fighting back with a couple hundred thousand dollars, while claiming nothing but good intentions for those who are claiming atrocities, claiming hero status, laundering millions, running shadow campaigns, and making false promises.

Originally posted by trumptmanProbably haven't covered that because they aren't. The issues they raise are legitimate and while a few details may conflict with their view of the events, an equal number of even more details conflict with the Kerry version of the events.

So I suppose by that reasoning, I could claim SwiftVets are partial liars while Kerry is a complete liar.

Well between this thread and the other, I've only been called a liar about twenty times. I was relatively cool for the first nineteen. Even that little bit was nice compared to what has been given.

Actually Adda claimed I am "wrong about everything." Not just about SwiftVet's but on everything on which I hold a view. To me that was just humorous because in reality (aka not these forums) if a person constantly "wrong on everything." You would expect them to be pretty bad off. I just mentioned that regardless of his view created by this little skewed community and the conclusions he draws from it, reality is very different.

In fact anyone who thinks they have credibility because "The people who post on AppleInsider all agree with me" ought to seek professional help.

I really don't care what you think. I know that I've been challenged as the messenger of this news to justify it in every possible way. (Including the whole donation angle that you brought up and still haven't admitted that I fulfilled) The real people who haven't looked at this are those that believe evil intentions of the people Kerry has criticized for three decades and who are fighting back with a couple hundred thousand dollars, while claiming nothing but good intentions for those who are claiming atrocities, claiming hero status, launding millions, running shadow campaigns, and making false promises.

Nick

So, let me get this straight (for all to see). You are taking the word of a bunch of guys who were not there over the word of a man who was (I posted the story already)? I simply can't believe you sometimes.

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

Originally posted by faust9So, let me get this straight (for all to see). You are taking the word of a bunch of guys who were not there over the word of a man who was (I posted the story already)? I simply can't believe you sometimes.

What the heck are you talking about? Oneil was the commander of Kerry's boat after he left.

The purple heart matter involved both the doctor that treated Kerry and Kerry's commanding officer.

The Bronz Star/Third Purple Heart matter involved the three other swiftboat commanders who were there that day. (There were five total, the fourth is Kerry, the fifth is dead)

How the hell is that "the word of a bunch of guys who were not over there?"

Originally posted by trumptmanWhat the heck are you talking about? Oneil was the commander of Kerry's boat after he left.

The purple heart matter involved both the doctor that treated Kerry and Kerry's commanding officer.

The Bronz Star/Third Purple Heart matter involved the three other swiftboat commanders who were there that day. (There were five total, the fourth is Kerry, the fifth is dead)

How the hell is that "the word of a bunch of guys who were not over there?"

Nick

Key words After He Left. You refuse to relent the purple heart though you've been shown he met the requirements. By continuing this line you are a liar just like Bush. The incident of which you speak has already been discussed as well. It happened, that simple. Why wont you talk about real issues Nick? Just curious.

"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...

Originally posted by trumptman
What the heck are you talking about? Oneil was the commander of Kerry's boat after he left.
What the heck are you talking about? Oneil was the commander of Kerry's boat after he left.
What the heck are you talking about? Oneil was the commander of Kerry's boat after he left.
What the heck are you talking about? Oneil was the commander of Kerry's boat after he left.

Originally posted by faust9Key words After He Left. You refuse to relent the purple heart though you've been shown he met the requirements. By continuing this line you are a liar just like Bush. The incident of which you speak has already been discussed as well. It happened, that simple. Why wont you talk about real issues Nick? Just curious.

Yes, except for Oneil wasn't used to challenge Kerry on the purple heart issue. He challenged Kerry on the claim of war atrocities being committed by the men still left behind after Kerry left.

So it isn't that it has been discredited, it is that you can't keep your facts and people straight.

We're supposed to believe that Bush went and did his duty in the Texas Air National Guard and that he reported for duty because he was given an honorable discharge from the military. The argument I've heard repeated time and time again is that since President Bush was honorably discharged, we shouldn't have to question his record of where he was or why he was honorably discharged, but to trust the military because if they said he did his duty, he did his duty.

Assuming you believe what I've written above, that the military is to be trusted with their records and give out citations and discharges appropriately, how is it that you can question John Kerry's medals, the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and his 3 Purple Hearts? After all, the military determined that he earned those awards and that he served honorably in the Navy.

If the Republicans want to make the argument that President Bush did his duty in the Texas Air National Guard and that the Democrats shouldn't go into the details of how he served because he got his 'honorable discharge', they can't make the argument that John Kerry did not do his duty in the Navy and that there should be investigations into how he did not earn his citations during the Vietnam War.

At this stage of the game, it's amusing that there are so many people coming out of the shadows that 'served' with John Kerry in Vietnam yet there are still no people coming forward that 'served' with George W. Bush in the Texas Air National Guard.

Originally posted by Fran441There's something I don't understand here.

We're supposed to believe that Bush went and did his duty in the Texas Air National Guard and that he reported for duty because he was given an honorable discharge from the military. The argument I've heard repeated time and time again is that since President Bush was honorably discharged, we shouldn't have to question his record of where he was or why he was honorably discharged, but to trust the military because if they said he did his duty, he did his duty.

Assuming you believe what I've written above, that the military is to be trusted with their records and give out citations and discharges appropriately, how is it that you can question John Kerry's medals, the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and his 3 Purple Hearts? After all, the military determined that he earned those awards and that he served honorably in the Navy.

If the Republicans want to make the argument that President Bush did his duty in the Texas Air National Guard and that the Democrats shouldn't go into the details of how he served because he got his 'honorable discharge', they can't make the argument that John Kerry did not do his duty in the Navy and that there should be investigations into how he did not earn his citations during the Vietnam War.

Originally posted by trumptmanProbably haven't covered that because they aren't. The issues they raise are legitimate and while a few details may conflict with their view of the events, an equal number of even more details conflict with the Kerry version of the events.

So I suppose by that reasoning, I could claim SwiftVets are partial liars while Kerry is a complete liar.
(.....)

Nick

Well, that's the problem isn't it? You keep insisting this even after you have been shown that these very same men praised Kerry to high heaven just a few years ago, even after you have it explained to you that the process of vetting the awarding of a medal requires more than the word of the person involved, even after the people actually on Kerry's boat have called these charges a lie, even after a skipper of one of the other boats has called it a lie, even after we learn that one of Kerry's accusers received a Bronze star for the same action that he now says Kerry didn't deserve his Bronze star for, even after the republican guy Kerry rescued has called it a lie, even knowing that this smear is part of a pattern of Karl Rove orchestrated attacks and is remarkably similar to previous campaigns against veterans, even knowing that the lead guy has been after Kerry for 30 years for what he did after he got back, even knowing that veterans that want Kerry hurt for what he did after he got back are in no short supply, and even knowing that nothing these guys say is anything more than here-say, and all documentary, credible evidence at hand supports Kerry and refutes the swift boat liars.

And you want us to believe that you simply think there is something here that bears investigation, because, well, you just do.

Instead of suspecting that you simply delight in anything that damages Kerry's campaign, and will tirelessly front for it, because you have no decency and care only about winning.

There really is no other way to take this, Nick. Nobody, and I mean nobody who is paying attention and isn't simply eager to see Kerry defeated by whatever means necessary, thinks this stuff is anything but the sleaziest kind of political attack, designed to damage exactly what Kerry took out of the convention, and that is credibility as a war time leader.

So I say again, i simply don't believe you when you say that you think there is some substance to this. I don't think you're that stupid.

But I'm forced to conclude that you are that amoral, that you don't care what is true and not, and that as a representative of contemporary conservatism you are all too typical.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Conservatives both here and in general are just scared of Kerry's military record. Bush is so lame in an area that is usually republican territory that the current anomaly is frightening. Obviously republicans will still vote for Bush even knowing he skipped out on the war, but the middle of the road voters who haven't yet made up their minds are likely to be swayed by this issue.

"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq